QuarrelBlue wrote:Why the deck-on-top design didn't become popular in the Real Life? Was the deck too heavy? Did it make the airship prone to capsize?(Knowing that lets us specify the required Weird-Science Solutions and make it look more "realistic" under the Nile Reality.)

That's an interesting question. I don't know if it would be physically possible or not in the real world, but I can think of plenty of reasons why nobody ever bothered trying. Dirigibles were tried for combat missions in WWI but were deemed too fragile to be practical. And so they were mainly used against subs or in non-combat roles in the World Wars. A dirigible carrier would be a juicy, high-value target, and how do you keep enemy fighters from tearing it apart?

Yeah, it would be waaaaaaaaaaay too fragile, and that's assuming you'd even be able to fly it at all given the mass of the rest of the internal structure.

Zackzenobi wrote:I'm picturing it Blue with a Gold Ankh and golden trim.

Can you tell us who is in charge of it when Mobius is not on it?

Also the comment above does make wonder, as big as it is, there seems to be room for a Temple Chamber to perform Miracles. A full sized Temple would have an extra Axiom bump if I'm remembering correctly. That would make Blessing the planes prior to battle easier. This would also allow for a Walking God on the Zeppelin Aircraft Carrier. Which I dont think the characters would be expecting.

QuarrelBlue wrote:Why the deck-on-top design didn't become popular in the Real Life? Was the deck too heavy? Did it make the airship prone to capsize?(Knowing that lets us specify the required Weird-Science Solutions and make it look more "realistic" under the Nile Reality.)

That's an interesting question. I don't know if it would be physically possible or not in the real world, but I can think of plenty of reasons why nobody ever bothered trying. Dirigibles were tried for combat missions in WWI but were deemed too fragile to be practical. And so they were mainly used against subs or in non-combat roles in the World Wars. A dirigible carrier would be a juicy, high-value target, and how do you keep enemy fighters from tearing it apart?

Yeah, it would be waaaaaaaaaaay too fragile, and that's assuming you'd even be able to fly it at all given the mass of the rest of the internal structure.

The US had at least the concept for a dirigible aircraft carrier in WW2, IIRC. I believe it may even have been operational as a sub hunter. They used a hook from under the blimp to catch the plane, then swing it aboard, though. I seem to recall seeing a picture years ago. (In the Time Life WW2 books? I don't remember. I'd have to go track down details.)

QuarrelBlue wrote:Why the deck-on-top design didn't become popular in the Real Life? Was the deck too heavy? Did it make the airship prone to capsize?(Knowing that lets us specify the required Weird-Science Solutions and make it look more "realistic" under the Nile Reality.)

That's an interesting question. I don't know if it would be physically possible or not in the real world, but I can think of plenty of reasons why nobody ever bothered trying. Dirigibles were tried for combat missions in WWI but were deemed too fragile to be practical. And so they were mainly used against subs or in non-combat roles in the World Wars. A dirigible carrier would be a juicy, high-value target, and how do you keep enemy fighters from tearing it apart?

Spatula wrote:That's an interesting question. I don't know if it would be physically possible or not in the real world, but I can think of plenty of reasons why nobody ever bothered trying. Dirigibles were tried for combat missions in WWI but were deemed too fragile to be practical. And so they were mainly used against subs or in non-combat roles in the World Wars. A dirigible carrier would be a juicy, high-value target, and how do you keep enemy fighters from tearing it apart?

Yeah, it would be waaaaaaaaaaay too fragile, and that's assuming you'd even be able to fly it at all given the mass of the rest of the internal structure.

The US had at least the concept for a dirigible aircraft carrier in WW2, IIRC. I believe it may even have been operational as a sub hunter. They used a hook from under the blimp to catch the plane, then swing it aboard, though. I seem to recall seeing a picture years ago. (In the Time Life WW2 books? I don't remember. I'd have to go track down details.)

Not sure about WWII, but early 30’s the Navy had the USS Akron and the USS Macon (both made by Goodyear). Both had something like 5 Biplanes on board for reconnaissance. I don’t recall how launching worked, but recovery was the hook mounted on the top wing engaging with a ‘trapeze’ on the ship.

Both ended up crashing before too long, and that’s when the Navy went to Non-rigid dirigibles...

I think I’m going to have to do some googling to get this straight though... lol

This is from the USS Macon. Must have been pretty bumpy to line up and get 'snagged' for recovery.Launching worked the same way, they got lowered out of the hanger with the engine going and then the hook would pull back and the biplane would drop free.

hawaiianbrian wrote:Funny, that was the exact image Deanna shared for how to have a proper zeppelin aircraft carrier without it dangling precariously from guywires.

Why the deck-on-top design didn't become popular in the Real Life? Was the deck too heavy? Did it make the airship prone to capsize?(Knowing that lets us specify the required Weird-Science Solutions and make it look more "realistic" under the Nile Reality.)

I would imagine both issues.

A deck on top would require a rigid structure for the balloon, as well as a bunch of supports that weigh a bunch. It would also be topheavy and thus prone to being pushed over - a gondola is already in the lowest point, so it's stable that way.

I'm speculating that the capsizing thing could be solved by going for a catamaran-style zeppelin - two balloons, and the deck built across the two.

hawaiianbrian wrote:Funny, that was the exact image Deanna shared for how to have a proper zeppelin aircraft carrier without it dangling precariously from guywires.

Why the deck-on-top design didn't become popular in the Real Life? Was the deck too heavy? Did it make the airship prone to capsize?(Knowing that lets us specify the required Weird-Science Solutions and make it look more "realistic" under the Nile Reality.)

I would imagine both issues.

A deck on top would require a rigid structure for the balloon, as well as a bunch of supports that weigh a bunch. It would also be topheavy and thus prone to being pushed over - a gondola is already in the lowest point, so it's stable that way.

I'm speculating that the capsizing thing could be solved by going for a catamaran-style zeppelin - two balloons, and the deck built across the two.

Under the Laws of Engineering, building a [redacted] pyramid into the corner struts would provide the stability to prevent capsizing. Or Mathematically, you could use [redacted] gallons of helium with [redacted] vaporized eternium in the balloon built to [redacted] formula, assuring the launch on the [redacted] night of the [redacted], and keeping 3 crewmen of [redacted] ages on board to accomplish the same thing.